Seekers of whatever stripe and whenever time likely start on the path commonly called, the mystic quest, looking for----magic. Magic---that the fundamentals of reality can be...changed. The glory of what Jan Cox saw, and cared to help others also see...is the glory of What IS... Simply to see what is.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
This question is not about irony
How strange is it, that the most imaginary of man's creations, evokes the bloodiest of responses? I am thinking of religion and the wars we needn't list. Jan Cox said once the contemporary religion was not just dead, but stinking. This was decades ago that he used those terms. So perhaps I am just caught up in the moment, since his terminology would suggest an evolutionary aspect to religion. I am not confident I have exhausted the topic: how is it that the most made up is that which makes men kill the fastest. One thought that occurs is the need to protect that which one detects (the hollow sound of certain wood when rapped) is false. Yet these people seem so sincere----(always a bad sign of course.) Or...and...when hormones need to rage for unstateable reasons, they get to rage least encumbered when raging about religion.
These events will subside, and men will, after the fact, pretend they have a grasp of what happened. And the intellectuals will never notice that these fictions almost utterly obscure thrilling and astounding dynamisms, discoverable through mere objectivity.
Other cultures seem to have a better grasp on basic realities. I just found this quote from a 16th century Japanese writer, named Ikoma Chikamasa:
Fooled into believing Heaven and Hell are not fake
Some people rejoice and some people quake.
That's the 1500s. I have no clue about the life cycle of religions.
These events will subside, and men will, after the fact, pretend they have a grasp of what happened. And the intellectuals will never notice that these fictions almost utterly obscure thrilling and astounding dynamisms, discoverable through mere objectivity.
Other cultures seem to have a better grasp on basic realities. I just found this quote from a 16th century Japanese writer, named Ikoma Chikamasa:
Fooled into believing Heaven and Hell are not fake
Some people rejoice and some people quake.
That's the 1500s. I have no clue about the life cycle of religions.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Touring the tourist
So what is going on with these Presidential, or royal, tours of
disaster scenes? It is not a fresh idea to compare a person to a
country: you have the brain,---the governing class, running things,
you have the heart/ belly, middle class, the emotions,giving the
whole a reason to live, and you have the feet, the workers, who
actually get anything done. Nothing new in this picture really. What
got me started on a query was the universalness of a certain behavior
on the part of the king/ president, and that is---they tour the
disaster area. Their tours are always on the news. If they don't
make this visit, they are chided as 'out of touch.' Yet what is going
on here, the president does not have ministers he trusts to report
back with accurate details on what is happening? He can't look at news
photos? What--he doesn't have CNN? Why is it mandatory that the leader
go in person to the disaster area?
disaster scenes? It is not a fresh idea to compare a person to a
country: you have the brain,---the governing class, running things,
you have the heart/ belly, middle class, the emotions,giving the
whole a reason to live, and you have the feet, the workers, who
actually get anything done. Nothing new in this picture really. What
got me started on a query was the universalness of a certain behavior
on the part of the king/ president, and that is---they tour the
disaster area. Their tours are always on the news. If they don't
make this visit, they are chided as 'out of touch.' Yet what is going
on here, the president does not have ministers he trusts to report
back with accurate details on what is happening? He can't look at news
photos? What--he doesn't have CNN? Why is it mandatory that the leader
go in person to the disaster area?
Because he likes to, that's why. It is fun to tour disaster areas as
long as you are up in a helicopter, and know that when you land on the
tarmac, there will be an audience to wave to, there will be reporters
eager to capture your words, there will be a clean warm dry distance
from what you have seen. Of course it's fun. Road Trip!!!! You get
to see what holds the potential for something new, something
unexpected, something different from your everyday routines--in the
toppled buildings beneath you--, without ever being in danger of
learning anything. The opportunities for the refreshments of the new--
where there is no chance to be drawn into any self examination -- are
not so common. The royal tour of the disaster area is popular because
the fun has such a low price. You are literally looking outward, and
there is a relief, though an unrecognized relief, in being able to do
what is necessary for your continuance in power AND get the reward of
having fun.
As with the president, so with the mechanical mind---the, ahem,
governing body. The mind insists on only looking outward, at a
certain point in its growth. This is for reasons of self-preservation,
a governing motive with those in power, and with that cerebral
distinctiveness of our species, the sapiens part. Just like Stalin,
self preservation comes first, and if self preservation is the only
thing, well, so bit. The mature mind really cannot admit it doesn't
know stuff. The metaphor falls apart of course when you consider the
effectiveness of a dictator compared with the effectiveness of binary
mechanical thought. But that is not really the point in this little
essay.
The mind looks out, and refuses to look inward: there is no
questioning, no increase in knowledge which comes from being open to
novelty, to say nothing of the quest of a few for real answers in the
"blooming confusion" to quote William James, which defines the
intellectual life. You can see this writ large in 20th century
philosophy which threw out metaphysics, for positivism. Just tossed
it out. Now when Jan Cox, one of the few real thinkers of the last
century, said, "if you can't touch it, it's not real, " that is
metaphysics, but he could say that because he had plumbed the shallows
of ordinary intellectual endeavors. He laughed at the thought that
modern science disregarded the inner life. In your head, he would
point, is your laboratory for, in his words, "doing this thing."
But 20th century philosophy is just one example of the intellect
looking outward, and only, outward.I hope though that it gives some
sense to my thoughts about touring the tourist--appreciating the
nature of the mechanical mind as we strive to see in ourselves, a good
example of that tourist, and press our quest to determine what else
may be inside, besides, the binary mind.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
CES- Consuming Energy Simplified
Some might suggest that the internet has strengthened individuality: now we can set up niche news feeds, and social networks geared to some obscure interests. A truly boggling amount of information is available, not boggling in terms of quantity perhaps, so much as boggling in terms of ease of access.
Still there may be a case for the opposite, that our technical environment actually homogenizes people to an unprecedented amount.
That humanity is something larger than the individual is true by definition. That the accent of reality may glint brighter on Humanity per se, rather than the individual is not a common proposition but one that could be defended (at another time). That humanity could resemble a machine which may be, itself, part of larger machinery, is verifiable by quiet logical consideration.
A friend noted that it felt strange to be privy to the life of someone you do not consider still a part of your own life. The subject was facebook, a social networking site. She echoed sentiments I had not myself expressed, but noticed. There is something different about social networking sites. That difference may be partly that the function of social networking is not to strengthen our own adorable individuality, but rather to diminish our originality so that each person is a better fitting cog in a larger machine. The person then would be a more easily replaced cog, a cog which suddenly has increased functions it needs to serve in the larger machinery.
This kind of adjustment might be especially important to a machine which is increasing in size. This makes communication between parts of the machine subject to adjustment to allow efficient (let's say nerve impulses) which must now cover a larger distance in the same or even smaller amount of time. This is just an example, of what may be adjustments growth demands.
The above though is too abstract---what would the individual notice that would prompt thoughts like those above? The discomfort my friend mentioned is an example. My own example involves the diversity of people on my friends list. People who see different aspects of me and in fact may not be able to comprehend some things, like my dumpster diving habits. Now what has happened--I may temper my comments to something blander that will not provoke confusion on the part of people who have known me for a long time. Notice the pressure to have a high number of friends on your fb list, notice that you are only supposed to have ONE profile on facebook, and then notice if you do not also tailor your comments in what could be called self-censorship.
The effect of this is, just on the mechanical level, to make people blander. This is what I meant by talking about homogenization. Everybody is a little more alike, everybody thereby makes a better cog.
This is an example, the web itself may be considered a more highly evolved level of nervous system, for an organism the parts of which do not need to appreciate their own actual function. I think of twitter, and the character limitations. And the popularity of twitter, and perhaps speed bumps would be an analogy of the function of twitter.
These are just some thoughts, not necessarily true or false, but designed to help us consider our world from a fresh perspective. Or, I may just be saying that...
Still there may be a case for the opposite, that our technical environment actually homogenizes people to an unprecedented amount.
That humanity is something larger than the individual is true by definition. That the accent of reality may glint brighter on Humanity per se, rather than the individual is not a common proposition but one that could be defended (at another time). That humanity could resemble a machine which may be, itself, part of larger machinery, is verifiable by quiet logical consideration.
A friend noted that it felt strange to be privy to the life of someone you do not consider still a part of your own life. The subject was facebook, a social networking site. She echoed sentiments I had not myself expressed, but noticed. There is something different about social networking sites. That difference may be partly that the function of social networking is not to strengthen our own adorable individuality, but rather to diminish our originality so that each person is a better fitting cog in a larger machine. The person then would be a more easily replaced cog, a cog which suddenly has increased functions it needs to serve in the larger machinery.
This kind of adjustment might be especially important to a machine which is increasing in size. This makes communication between parts of the machine subject to adjustment to allow efficient (let's say nerve impulses) which must now cover a larger distance in the same or even smaller amount of time. This is just an example, of what may be adjustments growth demands.
The above though is too abstract---what would the individual notice that would prompt thoughts like those above? The discomfort my friend mentioned is an example. My own example involves the diversity of people on my friends list. People who see different aspects of me and in fact may not be able to comprehend some things, like my dumpster diving habits. Now what has happened--I may temper my comments to something blander that will not provoke confusion on the part of people who have known me for a long time. Notice the pressure to have a high number of friends on your fb list, notice that you are only supposed to have ONE profile on facebook, and then notice if you do not also tailor your comments in what could be called self-censorship.
The effect of this is, just on the mechanical level, to make people blander. This is what I meant by talking about homogenization. Everybody is a little more alike, everybody thereby makes a better cog.
This is an example, the web itself may be considered a more highly evolved level of nervous system, for an organism the parts of which do not need to appreciate their own actual function. I think of twitter, and the character limitations. And the popularity of twitter, and perhaps speed bumps would be an analogy of the function of twitter.
These are just some thoughts, not necessarily true or false, but designed to help us consider our world from a fresh perspective. Or, I may just be saying that...
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Driving on Ice
There is an inherent inconsistency in writing about a man whose
technique to point people beyond the horizon of the obvious, was
original thought, a man who said, don't think the same thought twice.
He called the techniques, for reasons which might be clear if you
followed the above, various names, of which neuralizing is one.
The group of students to whom he spoke (those whom he allowed to
attend) presented a variety of names to the public aspect of his
activities, as one means to explore the dimensions such cerebral
discipline illuminated. We were Evoteck, The Future Now, and many
other titles. But how can such details be recalled without using
words that we learned from others in our early years, words we did not
invent, for who then could understand anything one said? And how can
one write about ideas some one else spoke? To glimpse these questions
is to have some grasp on a major technique used by the radical mystic
Jan Cox.
How to explain his ideas without violating his basic message, is a
question that must stay in the forefront.
It is even possible the dilemma I am bringing up is not the worst
trouble you can get in when struggling to apply his directions.
All this came to mind recently when I pondered how to mention a
wonderful quote from someone who died many centuries ago.
(120 AD). The author of Parallel Lives,: Plutarch.
technique to point people beyond the horizon of the obvious, was
original thought, a man who said, don't think the same thought twice.
He called the techniques, for reasons which might be clear if you
followed the above, various names, of which neuralizing is one.
The group of students to whom he spoke (those whom he allowed to
attend) presented a variety of names to the public aspect of his
activities, as one means to explore the dimensions such cerebral
discipline illuminated. We were Evoteck, The Future Now, and many
other titles. But how can such details be recalled without using
words that we learned from others in our early years, words we did not
invent, for who then could understand anything one said? And how can
one write about ideas some one else spoke? To glimpse these questions
is to have some grasp on a major technique used by the radical mystic
Jan Cox.
How to explain his ideas without violating his basic message, is a
question that must stay in the forefront.
It is even possible the dilemma I am bringing up is not the worst
trouble you can get in when struggling to apply his directions.
All this came to mind recently when I pondered how to mention a
wonderful quote from someone who died many centuries ago.
(120 AD). The author of Parallel Lives,: Plutarch.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
Am I going to end this post with some kind of resolution? Just
this--Jan said to us one icy night: To drive on ice do one of two
things----drive very slow, or drive VERY fast.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
What a Decade
The phrase Jan Cox used, 'there is no truth in words,' is pointing to
the same thing as the formulation 'the opposite is never true.' And
these formulas make no sense to the ordinary, that is, mechanical
mind, which typifies us all most of the time, and most of us all the
time. This example comes to mind, the love and tenderness Jan had for
what another generation would have called the created world. He
referred to plants once, as that category of living thing which clung
to its parent. He would not let an animal he knew about suffer. But he
did not dwell on what could not be helped, and he had not a moment of
mental energy to spend imagining situations which were not in front of
him. You saw a situation of an animal in need, you did the possible,
and mainly, then, you did not let the situation dwell in your mind. He
would use pesticides at times. And one night he said to us, (words to
this effect): "there is no need to move earthworms off the sidewalk."
The ordinary might find these contradictory situations. I am amazed at
the thought of his patience with his students.
the same thing as the formulation 'the opposite is never true.' And
these formulas make no sense to the ordinary, that is, mechanical
mind, which typifies us all most of the time, and most of us all the
time. This example comes to mind, the love and tenderness Jan had for
what another generation would have called the created world. He
referred to plants once, as that category of living thing which clung
to its parent. He would not let an animal he knew about suffer. But he
did not dwell on what could not be helped, and he had not a moment of
mental energy to spend imagining situations which were not in front of
him. You saw a situation of an animal in need, you did the possible,
and mainly, then, you did not let the situation dwell in your mind. He
would use pesticides at times. And one night he said to us, (words to
this effect): "there is no need to move earthworms off the sidewalk."
The ordinary might find these contradictory situations. I am amazed at
the thought of his patience with his students.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The Right Tools
The wonderful advances and exciting perspective of theoretical physics are like a jigsaw puzzle. When presented with the unknown, scientists will argue there are still pieces to find, to fit in, but they are working on it, (they have been saying this for centuries.) What they do not perceive is that the jigsaw puzzle needs a board to fit the pieces into, a table for the board to rest on. This, since they are unaware of the limitations of the tools available to physicists, is invisible to the scientists and so the limitations of their knowledge is not apparent.
There are tools available to those who seek to know, mental tools whose existence is mentioned in historical texts, tools which if consistently applied lead to reproducible results.
Without a feeling of spaciousness which an awareness of one's ignorance allows, the real questions cannot be addressed.
There are tools available to those who seek to know, mental tools whose existence is mentioned in historical texts, tools which if consistently applied lead to reproducible results.
Without a feeling of spaciousness which an awareness of one's ignorance allows, the real questions cannot be addressed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)